Raise income tax EXCEPT for the richest of the rich?

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by wgabrie, Aug 11, 2017.

Tags:
  1. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    76,913
    Likes Received:
    764
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Speaking of "fair," is there some reason you're excluding SS, Medicare, excise state and local taxes from your analysis of who bears the tax burden?
     
  2. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    76,913
    Likes Received:
    764
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, I expect you to post your "the poor deserve their lot" claims every time there is a thread like this. It makes the rich feel better about themselves when they can feel that the poor are at fault for their position, and makes them feel like they deserve their riches.

    But the bottom 90% of hard working Americans didn't suddenly decide to "choose to be poor" in 1981.

    [​IMG]

    Something else happened that year.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017
  3. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    FICA is not a tax, but an insurance premium, and the wealthy pay significantly more in excise, state and local taxes than the poor.

    I can't think of a single state which levies a sales tax on rent, labor, food, or the basic necessities like utilities and insurance, cities typically depend upon business taxes for the lion's share of their revenue, and excise taxes generally require some level of discretionary income.

    About half of all Federal revenue(excluding FICA) is from the personal income tax, and most states derive their income from sales, property, and income taxes. Local government is dependent upon property, sales, and business taxes, plus fees for service.

    Claiming you pay $1,000 in state/local taxes doesn't offset the fact that your local government would probably be bankrupt without Federal funding, and not paying the Federal income tax means you aren't contributing to that.
     
    Ndividual likes this.
  4. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    76,913
    Likes Received:
    764
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FICA is social insurance that is paid so we don't have hordes of the aged living in the streets, supported by a regressive tax system that cuts out SS taxes after about $120k of income, and exempts these taxes completely form investment income.

    .

    Down here in Florida its levied on pretty much everything. State and local taxes vary by state but tend to be less progressive or regressive than federal taxes. Which should be no surprise since Republicans control the vast majority of state governments.

    Down here in Florida over the years the Republicans have eliminated the intangible tax on investment wealth and expanded sales and use fees (i.e. road tolls) that have a regressive, disproportationate affect on the middle/poorer folks.

    So what's your point? Whether they are necessary or contributing or not, they still are taxes that people pay.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017
  5. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    I know a great way to eliminate that regressive tax while eliminating wealth and income inequality within 50 years. PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY.

    And be careful to accuse Republicans of levying regressive taxes. Checked what the gas tax is in California lately?
     
  6. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,905
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Perhaps it would help were you to provide the quoted words of mine to which your question is based.
     
  7. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    11,945
    Likes Received:
    951
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Actually, they can use it. Its a global economy, and the companies that have a lot of money overseas made it through foreign business activity. They have already paid the foreign nations taxes on that money.

    They can invest that money outside the USA and make more money, or they can invest it into expanding their foreign business activity, or they can bring it back to the USA and lose a good chunk of it to taxes and have to deal with all the regulatory BS of the US govt.
     
  8. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    That was the point I was making. The cash never is used in the United States, because then it would be taxable, so nothing is being "hidden"
     
  9. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    15,024
    Likes Received:
    1,319
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Probably not since if the income was more evenly distributed the other 99% would pay significantly more in taxes. The nation amazingly did not collapse in the past when income distribution was not nearly as skewed towards the top.
     
  10. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    15,024
    Likes Received:
    1,319
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And my guess would be the top one percent probably doesn't pays much more than 25% of their actual income in taxes. There are all these wonderful things like long term capital gains, tax free municipal bonds and other exception too numerous to mention. And then of course there are stock gains, Roth IRA's, capital appreciation and many other things that can be legitimatly considered income in that it adds to wealth that are never taxed.

    Don't feel to sorry for the rich because of their supposed high tax rates. Somehow despite how oppressed they are they manage to control an ever higher percentage of the nation's wealth year after year.
     
  11. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,905
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Income is earned, not distributed, as a result of work performed or as a result of an interest bearing investment. While you may use the term 'distributed' realistically in the case of a unionized workforce where both good and poor workers are paid the same wage which in reality is the result of the poor workers being paid more by paying the good workers less than their true value.
     
  12. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    15,024
    Likes Received:
    1,319
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well in the case of CEO salaries and executive bonuses a case can be clearly made that income often does not reflects results. And money earned by interest bearing investment is sometimes counted as earnings but as I pointed out that is often not the case and that income is very often not taxed at all.

    And while I do agree that unions require the same pay for everyone who does the same work when you eliminate unions the average earnings drop significantly. And by the way the claim that unions prevent you from getting rid of bad employees is nonsense. Itndoes make it harder and you do have to follow the correct proceedures is sometimes but it can be done.
     
  13. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,905
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That would be something for the employer/share holders to decide.

    Perhaps true sometimes the case, but as long as the activities are within the law is all that matters.


    Unions require the same pay for everyone who has the same 'job title' might be more appropriate. I'm unaware of any supporting evidence that eliminating unions results in average earnings dropping significantly.


    Did I make such a claim?
    But I agree, based upon experience, that unions can make it more difficult and costly for an employer to remove a bad employee.
     
  14. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    15,024
    Likes Received:
    1,319
    Trophy Points:
    113
    CEO salaries/ benefits are negotiated between the board and the candidate. Stockholders have no say. And since CEO's often serve on one anothers boards it is a best an incestuous system.

    For a simple example of how earnings compare between union shops and non union all you have to do is research auto plant pay.But there are general studies you can research on line. It is not a coincidence that as union membership has declined the inflation adjusted income of middle class Americans has stayed constant or gone down while the income of upper msnagment has increased significantly.
     
  15. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,905
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Stockholders DO have a say, read your proxy statement, while the board may recommend a vote the shareholder is free to vote against the boards recommendation. The primary objective of any business is, and should be, to produce a product or provide a service which can be sold at a price greater than the total costs.

    The auto plants that cost taxpayers $9.3 billion and those that did not? While businesses have grown larger and more complex, mechanization has resulted in the labour provided by most hourly paid employees to have diminished greatly while the responsibilities of upper management has increased significantly.
     
  16. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    15,024
    Likes Received:
    1,319
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No the stockholders have no say except being able to vote after the fact. And you might want to note that the vote is advisory not binding. This will aid your understanding:

    https://www.asyousow.org/our-work/power-of-the-proxy/executive-compensation/faqs/

    Do shareholders get to vote on compensation? What’s the history of say-on-pay advisory votes?
    Following the financial crisis of 2008, one of the first components of reform was the requirement under Section 951 of the Dodd Frank Act requiring companies to allow shareholders to cast advisory votes on executive pay packages and golden parachutes. Adopted in January 2011, the rule followed years of shareholder activism on the issue. The United Kingdom adopted a requirement in 2002, and Australia followed in 2004. U.S. shareholders had filed many shareholder proposals on the issue, and some companies had adopted a voluntary policy of placing compensation up to a vote. But the 2011 rule requiring all companies to allow shareholders to vote means that shareholders now have a right – and a responsibility – to weigh in annually on the issue.

    Back to top

    What has been the outcome of the votes thus far?
    Though the votes have no mandatory component, boards have taken notice. The outright failure of an advisory vote is very rare. In 2013, shareholders voted on advisory votes at 3,363 companies, and just 70 failed to receive majority support. In most cases companies do respond to such a vote with changes, though some are merely cosmetic. However, practices that were once common – for example, tax gross-ups in which the company paid any extra taxes an executive was required to pay on outsize severance packages – have been practically eliminated. While these steps are to be applauded, the general trends have remained troubling.

    Say on Pay votes can have a powerful effect. After the majority of shareholders failed to support the company’s pay packages in 2012 and 2013, Abercrombie and Fitch separated the chairman and CEO positions, increased its emphasis on performance-based equity, redesigned both short-term and long-term incentive programs, and signed a new employment agreement with CEO Michael Jeffries. In 2014 shareholders approved the advisory vote on compensation.

    Some companies claim that high levels of support suggest that there’s nothing wrong with pay: the average say on pay vote is supported by 91% of votes cast. However, we believe that this does not reflect investor intent, but rather voting logistics. Many funds have a default pro-management inclination, and even those who hope to do case-by-case analysis often are unable to do so. Because most companies have fiscal years that end on December 31, there’s a tsunami of proxy statements that arrive within a month of each other. Analyzing executive compensation isn’t easy, and plans crafted by teams of lawyers can be difficult for shareholders to comprehend. Many defer to proxy advisors who have a variety of rubrics, some stronger than others.




    The responsibilities of upper management have increased significantly? How did you cone upmwith that conclusion? And the hourly employess while there are indeed less of them still work eight hour shifts. They just get paid less.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2017 at 9:32 AM
  17. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,905
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    My comments were/are based upon the investments I've held for a great many years.
    It is the upper management who must deal with government regulations, taxes, union contract bargaining, in addition to keeping the business operating profitably. Yes, many hourly employees still work eight hour shifts, and again I can only speak for the company I retired from which I still communicate with some employees who have yet retired and they have averaged a nearly 3% wage increase each year since I retired. When I retired we were working a 4 day work week, 10 hours a day although the work had diminished greatly from what it was when I began the job, to the point of boredom . There were times when I had nothing at all to do for days on end, yet I was paid the same regardless. And then there were occasions when I had to work a double or longer shift and I was paid a premium. But businesses, like people, are not all the same. The profits of businesses are based upon the value of their products and/or services to those who consume them while the wages/salaries paid by businesses are based upon the availability and value of the employees who are capable of performing a needed function.

    But to return to the thread topic of "raising taxes", a fair share of Federal tax today would be about $12,000 per family member, which is paid by very few. In my opinion a 25% tax rate is exorbitant no matter how much a person earns, and if the Federal government is to continue to be allowed to tax income, NO ONE should be exempt from paying taxes on their income no matter how little. And tax rates should be set to a fixed base rate of no more than three tiers, with government adjustments ONLY allowed to adjust the income level at which each tier begins OR to increase/decrease each base rate by the same amount when raising or lowering the tax rates. Government spending in support of non-working and/or those who work and pay no income tax is the primary source of inflation and wealth disparity. We need to get government spending under control, or come 2100 our Grandchildren will be fighting for a $250 minimum wage to live above the poverty level.
     
  18. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    15,024
    Likes Received:
    1,319
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Suggest if you want yo discuss the pluses and minuses of a fair tax you start a separate thread. Now if you want to defend your statement that government spending in support of those who pay no income tax is the primary source of inflation and wealth disparity that would be interesting.

    One minute you seem to be saying the rich pay a disproportionate amount of taxes and in the next minute you are saying that is the cause of the rising concentration of wealth at the top. Does not follow logically to my mind.
     
  19. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,905
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I believe there are several threads already pertaining to a 'fair' tax. Essentially what I was trying to get across relative to this threads title, which poses a question "Raise income tax EXCEPT for the richest of the rich?" is that the Federal government, much more so than the State and local governments taxation of the population should be done in a way that applies equally to all individuals. Therefore raising or lowering taxes by the Federal government should either raise everyones tax or lower everyones tax.

    Perhaps as you suggested, if you wish to discuss 'inflation and wealth disparity' you should start a separate thread.

    Yes, that is pretty much what I was saying. Perhaps you should give some thought to what I said concentrating on the path of the money.
     
  20. jack4freedom

    jack4freedom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,611
    Likes Received:
    750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Prager U.....lol. That pompous ass is as big a con as Donald and his Trump University farce. His "University" is as big a crock of **** as Trump's. Denis Prager was a draft dodging hippy who decided to become a CONservative so he could get in on the big money following Rush Limbaugh on the AM talk circuit just like fellow Trotskyite phony, Michael Medved. Prager is a big phony who could pontificate in favor of either point of view regarding any subject like any good shyster lawyer. Get a friggin' grip champ and try not to be such a dupe.
     

Share This Page